Cliff Varnell

Thank you, John Kelin! I ordered the book last Sunday and anticipate its arrival like a little kid waiting for Xmas. The entire transcript of the Fonzi-Specter encounter -- a lovely slice of research heaven! Words cannot express my gratitude, sir!

Yes. And this is what I said about that: Jack had the good sense to ignore me. You're a good guy Cliff, and I agree with many of your views including those about Salandria, Fonzi and Larry Hancock. All the best wishes for a good Christmas and New Year. The same to you, my friend! I take your point as to my hastiness in this instance, and I will be purchasing John Kelin's book. Happy Holidays all!

My point was to show how far from the original research we've come, and I wonder if this situation extended to John Kelin's book on the original researchers. I see people come on this Forum patting the original researchers on the back while utterly ignoring their research. I'm trying to find out if this is true of Mr. Kelin's book. The "if" would seem to raise a question, would it not? You're splitting hairs, Michael. Both my use of the word "if" and my use of "?" certainly smack of questions. I stand corrected. Another distinction without a difference, imo. Having spent the better part of a grand to attend the "Cracking the Case" conference I'm a little leery about claims made by anybody. That's why I'm discussing it here, Michael. It would be nice if Kelin moved in lockstep with Salandria and Fonzi, since they point out the prima facie case for conspiracy. I'm hoping he does. Then I'll spend my dough on his book. See how easy this is? I wasn't "promoting" anything any more than Jack White was with his statement about Mary. And I still haven't seen my question about Fonzi answered.

I asked a question about Salandria, and stated my reason for asking it. The question was answered. I said Oliver Stone should have made "JFK" about Salandria, not Garrison. What more do you want, Michael? Yes. John Kelin asked if he'd left anybody out and I asked -- "Gaeton Fonzi?" And what, pray tell, is wrong with asking questions of those who have read the book? If such omissions exist I'll save my money. If such omissions don't exist, I'll buy it. That's why I asked the questions in the first place. And yet several decades later there was a conference in Pittsburgh devoted to the Single Bullet Theory which featured "CT" speakers who place the back wound at the base of the neck. Another conference advertised as "Cracking the Case" didn't address the issue at all, and a couple of published authors there questioned whether there was a conspiracy at all. The earliest research is readily ignored by people who come on this Forum to praise it. That is my objection here, Michael. My negativity is directed at the current state of JFK research. My negativity is directed toward sites like Lancer which characterize the SBT as "not probable" rather than "flat out impossible." I asked two questions about the book, and explained why I asked those questions. I find nothing out of line with asking questions about the contents of a book. No where near the tedium I feel when the "case for conspiracy" is argued on points that require advanced college degrees to verify. And that's where we are today for the most part, Michael. Just look at Morley's recent work -- what does he emphasize? The NAA. We've gone backwards, Michael. All I want to know is if I'm going to spend money on something that is actually going to move us forward again. If Kelin covers this evidence I'll buy his book. If he doesn't, I won't. Due diligence. Works for me...

Right on time. Case in point. Vincent Bugliosi regards the final autopsy report as a legitimate medicolegal document, and he places the back wound at T1. Pat Speer regards the final autopsy report as a legitimate medicolegal document and he places the back wound at T1. This is a view shared by any number of "CT"s like John Hunt and Stu Wexler. Of course, none of them can defend this position to save their lives, but it doesn't stop them from dragging the case into meaningless black hole controversies like the location of the head wounds and the NAA. The reason "the war drags on" is because "instant-expert" newbies and their "new perspectives" ignore the earliest research in the case. Once the "smoking gun" evidence is acknowledged the need for the Parlor Game "question of conspiracy" is moot. The pity is so many don't want that Parlor Game to end, and so here we are plagued with issues that should have been settled over 40 years ago. Sad.

I'm responding to John's comment -- "I hope I'm not forgetting anyone." Since the name Gaeton Fonzi has not come up in this thread, I think my question is valid. If Fonzi and his encounter with Specter are not in the book, then my criticism is justified, imo. I see no harm in bringing this up, frankly, and I'll be delighted beyond words to be wrong. But as Michael Hogan pointed out earlier, I have a poker background, and to be brutally honest I sense a bluff at work. Not from John, necessarily, but from the JFK research community as a whole. Let us not forget this from Vincent Salandria, as written up by Fonzi in TLI, pg 28, emphasis mine: (quote on) "I'm afraid we were misled," Salandria said sadly, "All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time and effort micro-analyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy...We must face that fact -- and not spend anymore time micro-analyzing the evidence. That is exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long. And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you. They'll keep you very, very busy and, eventually, they'll wear you down." (quote off) At the time (1975) Fonzi speculated that Salandria was a little crazy -- turns out he was highly prescient. Yes, I'm sure it will. As I say, I'll be overjoyed if it helps fill THE void in JFK research: the failure of the JFK research community to effectively advance -- or even acknowledge! -- the irrefutable physical evidence of conspiracy (a failure in which I share, btw.) What do the following have in common? The Warren Report The HSCA Final Report The 2003 Wecht Conference on the SBT The 2005 Cracking the Case Conference at Bethesda Bugliosi's Reclaiming History No where in any of the above was the discrepancy noted between the physical evidence (the bullet holes in JFK's clothing) and the SBT. I attended the Cracking the Case Conference. On the first day Anthony Summers basically apologized for the title of his book Conspiracy because, (I paraphrase) "The question is not what kind of conspiracy existed, but if a conspiracy existed." Jeff Morley, sitting next to Summers on stage, nodded his head wisely. I almost fell off my chair. Color me jaundiced, but I think we've all been misled. Indeed.

Gaeton Fonzi? Specifically, his encounter with Arlen Specter in 1966 as described in the following article and in The Last Investigation: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/The_critics/F...th_Specter.html (quote on) The Warren Commission Report says the entrance wound caused by the bullet which came out Kennedy’s throat was “approximately 5½ inches” below the back of the right ear. Yet photographs of the Presidents jacket and shirt, which were part of the FBI supplemental report of January 13th, make it difficult to believe that is the truth. These photographs were not part of the Warren Commission Report and were left out of the 26 volumes of supporting evidence. Although a description of Kennedy’s clothing was in the Report, the discrepancy between the location of the bullet holes in them and the reported location of the wounds was never discussed or explained. And there was a very obvious discrepancy: The hole in the back of the jacket was 5-3/8 inches below the top of the collar and 1¾ inches to the right of the center back seam of the coat. Traces of copper were found in the margins of the hole and the cloth fibers were pushed inward. “Although the precise size of the bullet could not be determined from the hole, it was consistent with having been made by a 6.5-millimeter bullet,” said the Report. The shirt worn by the President also contained a hole in the back about 5¾ inches below the top of the collar and 1-1/8 inches to the right of the middle. It, too, had the characteristics of a bullet entrance hole. Both these holes are in locations that seem obviously inconsistent with the wound described in the Commission’s autopsy report—placed below the back of the right ear—and illustrated in exhibit 385, which Dr. Humes had prepared. “Well,” said Specter, when asked about this in his City Hall office last month, “that difference is accounted for because the President was waving his arm.” He got up from his desk and attempted to have his explanation demonstrated. “Wave your arm a few times, he said, “wave at the crowd. Well, see if the bullet goes in here, the jacket gets hunched up. If you take this point right here and then you strip the coat down, it comes out at a lower point. Well, not too much lower on your example, but the jacket rides up.” If the jacket were “hunched up,” wouldn’t there have been two holes as a result of the doubling over of the cloth? “No, not necessarily. It…it wouldn’t be doubled over. When you sit in the car it could be doubled over at most any point, but the probabilities are that…aaah…that it gets… that…aaah…this…this is about the way a jacket rides up. You sit back…sit back now… all right now…if…usually, as your jacket lies there, the doubling up is right here, but if…but if you have a bullet hit you right about here, which is where I had it, where your jacket sits…it’s not…it’s not…it ordinarily doesn’t crease that far back.” What about the shirt? “Same thing.” So there is no real inconsistency between the Commission’s location of the wound and the holes in the clothing? “No, not at all. That gave us a lot of concern. First time we lined up the shirt…after all, we lined up the shirt…and the hole in the shirt is right about, right about the knot of the tie, came right about here in a slit in the front…” But where did it go in the back? “Well, the back hole, when the shirt is laid down, comes…aaah…well, I forget exactly where it came, but it certainly wasn’t higher, enough higher to…aaah…understand the… aah…the angle of decline which…” Was it lower? Was it lower than the slit in the front? “Well, I think that…that if you took the shirt without allowing for it’s being pulled up, that it would either have been in line or somewhat lower.” Somewhat lower? “Perhaps. I…I don’t want to say because I don’t really remember. I got to take a look at that shirt.” It is difficult to believe that Arlen Specter didn’t take a very close look at that shirt—and that jacket—at the time of the investigation and that these factors didn’t indelibly stick in his mind: Kennedy was one of the best-tailored presidents ever to occupy the White House, and if it is possible—but not probable—that he was wearing a suit jacket baggy enough to ride up five or six inches in the back when he waved his arm, it is inconceivable that a tightly-buttoned shirt could have done the same thing. (quote off) The Single Bullet Theory was demolished in 1966 by Gaeton Fonzi, who exposed Arlen Specter and his Single Bullet Theory as a fraud. If this encounter isn't covered in Mr. Kelin's book it's a grievous omission, imo.

Cliff, certainly a veteran poker man such as yourself can make the assumption that Salandria is in the book. He has to be. That's what I'd figure, but he wasn't mentioned in the Amazon blurb. Hell, I think Oliver Stone picked the wrong guy for "JFK" -- Salandria would have made a better subject than Garrison, imo.

Thanks Dawn. I just ordered it; you convinced me to do it sooner than later. If you say it's a must read, I know I can count on that. And thanks to Peter for the heads-up that Kelin's book was available. The First Generation Critics as they've come to be known were a small but remarkable group of men and women. Gosh, that seems such a long time ago.... I checked it out at Amazon. Vincent Salandria wrote a nice blurb for the book, but I didn't get the impression that Salandria was in the book. If that's the case I may not buy it.

Charles, May I suggest a corollary: Anyone who has read Gerald McKnight's Breach of Trust and still regards the JFK final autopsy report as a genuine medicolegal document is both intellectually dishonest and a participant, witting or unwitting, in the cover-up of JFK's murder.

JFK wore a tucked in custom made dress shirt. The hole in the dress shirt is 4" below the bottom of the shirt collar and the hole in the jacket is 4 & 1/8" below the jacket collar. The jacket was elevated 1/8" vis a vis the shirt. In order to get both of those bullet holes to align with C7 the shirt and the jacket had to be elevated in tandem about 3 inches. Neat trick for a custom-made dress shirt -- which only requires a fraction of an inch of slack. Neat trick for the jacket -- which the Dealey Plaza films and photos show dropping in Dealey. You can't get a dress shirt and jacket to move the same. You can't get 3 inches of a jacket to elevate entirely above C7 at the base of the neck without pushing up on the jacket collar at the base of the neck. JFK's jacket collar was in a normal position at the base of his neck on Elm St. "Bunch Theory" is a scam perpetrated by frauds. Not even Bugliosi could bring himself to defend this nonsense.

You assume correctly. Allow me to quote a friend of yours. This is an e-mail exchange I had with Jim Marrs back in 2002. I wrote (emphasis added): Jim wrote back (emphasis in bold added): The physical evidence in the case establishes a 4+ shot certainty. The fact of conspiracy is thus driven home most efficiently, effectively, irrefutably. We go right from there to Bill Kelly's "Way Back Machine" -- the time line of historical fact. Everything else is utter bollocks, meaningless controversy. In my opinion, fwiw... I have known Jim Marrs for more than thirty-five years, and talk to him frequently. His email to you was a polite "Texas brush-off"...essentially agreeing with you THAT ONLY ONE PROOF IS NEEDED to prove the conspiracy. The single bullet theory is a good one to choose; if you can prove it, nothing else is necessary. Jim agrees with you on that. But he does NOT believe that in studying the case. He has studied EVERY ASPECT OF THE CASE since it happened. HE WILL NOT AGREE WITH YOU THAT HE COULD HAVE STOPPED WITH THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY. You present one email from Jim. I present knowing him nearly forty years. Jack Jack, I had taken a similar view as Jim Marrs' on the clothing evidence at the beginning of my internet research back in 1997. That was the starting point. It has nothing to do with "stopping research in the case." It has everything to do with investing one's time in areas more fruitful than others. I find the NAA controversy a pernicious waste of time. The acoustics evidence is a national joke, since the T3 back wound establishes 4+ shots. The controversy over the head wounds is probably the biggest black hole discussion in the entire case. Jim Garrison set the JFK investigation back several years. And this is just to name the major areas I regard as a waste of time. Alteration post-Z255 is a rabbit hole I choose not to go down.

You assume correctly. Allow me to quote a friend of yours. This is an e-mail exchange I had with Jim Marrs back in 2002. I wrote (emphasis added): Jim wrote back (emphasis in bold added): The physical evidence in the case establishes a 4+ shot certainty. The fact of conspiracy is thus driven home most efficiently, effectively, irrefutably. We go right from there to Bill Kelly's "Way Back Machine" -- the time line of historical fact. Everything else is utter bollocks, meaningless controversy. In my opinion, fwiw...

Great! Then we appear to have little conflict. I have yet to see any argument that the films and photos I cited are anything but authentic. I wish you the best in your research, Jack. Why do you ascribe to me a belief I have never, ever stated? I have not disputed any part of ANYONE's testimony, and as an avid defender of the witness testimony and the witnesses, I urge you to cease characterizing my arguments as such. I think 95% of what is said and written about the case is utter bollocks. And that includes 9 years of my own work on the usenet groups. This is not meant to be taken personally, Jack.

Cliff, Me old Harriman sparring partner, might be worth checking the Houston Chronicle interview with Chaney published in the paper's edition of 24 November 1963. According to Mark Lane's testimony to the WC, citing that interview, Chaney said he was 6 feet to the right and front of the President’s car, moving about 15 miles an hour…when the first shot was fired” (2H43). Anyone got a copy of that Chronicle interview to confirm or refute Lane's version? And is Chaney really behind the presidential limo at the moment of Altgens #5? Looks very like he's alongside it to me, looking to his left! He died, incidentally, reportedly of a heart attack, in 1976. Paul Paul, I hold out the possibility that the first shot Chaney heard was not necessarily the first shot fired or the first shot to hit JFK. I see nothing in Altgens #6 (Elm St) in conflict with Chaney's testimony, no matter how we may characterize his location.

John, I think we're both convinced that our respective approaches are the most effective way to attack the cover-up of John F. Kennedy's murder. The vast differences (and perhaps even conflicts) in our methodologies do not deter from our common goal. Prior to the throat shot and 3.4 seconds after. From the Adolphus Hotel on Main St. to Altgens #6. After Z255 -- have at it, my friends, and may the Goddess bless. That's the start -- just west of the Adolphus. Music to my ears, John. Everything we need to know about "how" JFK was murdered can be found in that sequence. Main St. to the kill zone. The "how" strongly indicates the "who," from whom we can readily deduce the "why." Correct. JFK's actions in the limo. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3uH7FHjCeQ Z225-237. Nellie was right there and described the hand motions at the throat. With all due respect -- do you have to? I'm a big fan of Dealey Plaza witness testimony, John. This is a great work you have produced. I'm also a big fan of the photo evidence I have cited, as well as contemporaneous documents at Parkland and Bethesda, and near-contemporaneous documents such as the death certificate and the FBI autopsy report (but NOT the final autopsy report, which was a political document!) One of the great myths of the JFK assassination is that there was absolutely NO legitimate official investigation into the crime on 11/22/63. This is not true. "Somewhere between 11pm and midnight," the autopsists huddled and speculated that JFK was struck in the back with a round that dissolved in his body. The FBI men took this speculation seriously enough that one of them called the firearms unit at the FBI Lab to inquire as to the existence of blood soluble rounds -- the Magic Bullet was presented, instead. Because the FBI guy gave it a corny name -- "ice bullet" -- this scenario is roundly pooh-poohed. That's a mistake. The historical record shows the CIA with such a weapon in '63, the Dealey Plaza films and photos show JFK turning paralyzed within 3 seconds -- all according to the CIA playbook -- and the throat x-ray shows an "air pocket" at the very back of the neck but no exit. Nellie described the motions at the throat and Jackie described a "quizzical look" and asked: "What are they doing to you?" They were paralyzing him for the head shot -- obvious to me. I'm not a Co-Incidence Theorist.

Clarification: the Fox 5 autopsy photo has been proven to be faked, just as the HSCA suspected. I resist being put into any one "camp" in the alteration debates, most of which I've managed to avoid.

Jack, you are describing the actions of Cheney after Z255/Altgens6. My area of interest is at Z255 and earlier. If that's Cheney in Altgens6 then he clearly was behind the limo at that point. If you guys can't impeach the authenticity of the films/photos I cited, you're throwing the baby out with the bath water, imo. Why limit the authenticity of photos ONLY to those BEFORE the Altgens SIX photo? Because that is the crucial sequence which shows: 1) The drop of JFK's jacket on Houston St. and the continued drop on Elm St. Couple this readily observable phenomenon with the location of the holes in the clothes and any further discussion of the "Lone Assassin Theory" is moot. The holes in the clothes and the Dealey Plaza photo evidence corroborate the T3 back wound recorded in the death certificate. We can dispense with discussion about the NAA and other black hole "debates" about the "question of conspiracy." 2) It shows JFK reacting to a shot to the throat from the front and becoming paralyzed in less than 3 seconds. This event finds much corroboration in the witness testimony. I thought Altgens said he did not remember taking #5. Not the same as a flat-out denial, eh? The Houston St. segment of the Nix film appears to agree with Altgens #5 -- I have no reason to suspect its authenticity. Correct. Utter waste of time in my opinion. Since Cheney doesn't say anything that impeaches the authenticity of Altgens #6, my argument potentially remains with you and other alterationists, but I'm still waiting for the argument that the photos I cited are not authentic.

Jack, you are describing the actions of Cheney after Z255/Altgens6. My area of interest is at Z255 and earlier. If that's Cheney in Altgens6 then he clearly was behind the limo at that point. If you guys can't impeach the authenticity of the films/photos I cited, you're throwing the baby out with the bath water, imo.

Cliff...apparently: 1. You are not familiar enough with the photo evidence I'm familiar enough with the evidence I cited. In fact, the question I put to John was one I put to you, Jack, some time ago. You expressed the conclusion that any photo showing Zap and Sitz had been altered. You also expressed doubt about Altgens 5 (the Houston St photo), since apparently Ike Altgens doesn't remember taking it. Well, I don't buy the Zap/Sitz Dance, and maybe Ike Altgens simply forgot. Other than that, you expressed no suspicions concerning the films/photos I cited. When, in an earlier post, John said he had a more powerful argument for alteration, I asked him just as I asked you (see above). Apparently, John's analysis doesn't include arguing for alteration in the films/photos I cited above. Apparently, these films to which you refer do not include the Houston St. segment of the Nix film, or the Towner film. Okay, I'll ask again: other than the Zap/Sitz Dance and the Houston St. photo maybe/maybe-not taken by Ike Altgens -- what evidence of alteration do you find in the following: 1) The Houston St. segment of the Nix film 2) The Towner film 3) Willis 4 & 5 4) Altgens 5 & 6 (Houston St/Elm St.) 5) Betzner 3 And a bonus round! 6) Croft 3 That's what the Sunday school teacher used to tell me. All the photos and films I cited occurred at and prior to Z255. What's missing from them, Jack?

John, thank you for your views on the topic. My area of research is the Dealey Plaza photo evidence up to Altgens/Z255, specifically relating to the clothing evidence. I also find no "violent disagreements" between the Dealey Plaza photos and the eye-witness accounts as to what occurred up to that point. There is a conflict between the Zapruder film and the consensus witness testimony as to the movement of the limo after JFK was first shot. Bill Miller has a "benign" explanation; Jack White (and yourself and others) have a "sinister explanation." I remain agnostic on that point, and remain removed from that particular debate. Otherwise, I subscribe to Tink Thompson's adage -- "The Dealey Plaza films and photos are the bedrock evidence in the case." I know that's a conversation-stopper, John, but you've given me no reason to doubt the authenticity of the films and photos taken at and before Altgens/Z255.

Meanwhile, back to actual evidence: http://youtube.com/watch?v=u3uH7FHjCeQ

Except that Pat Speer has no clue where the wound in the back was located, and doesn't seem to "get" the throat wound either. Anyone who treats the final autopsy report as a genuine medicolegal document should find another hobby, imo.

John, I'm interested to know if there are any reasons to question the authenticity of the following Dealey Plaza photos and films: The Houston St. segment of the Nix film The Towner film Altgens 5 & 6 Willis 4 & 5 Betzner 3 ...Thank you.

This is beautiful indeed, Chris. Thanks! JFK's gleaming white shirt collar at the back of his neck is clear as day. Arguably the most under-rated piece of evidence in the entire case. The SBT cannot be reconciled with the holes in JFK's clothing and the Towner film showing the jacket collar in a normal position at the base of JFK's neck.